Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

Good Jobs for the Formerly Incarcerated will Make Our City Safer


crim just ro

A 'jails to jobs' event (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


The humanitarian crisis at Rikers Island is alarming. Criminal justice reform advocates and elected officials are right to demand an end to the violence, death, and chaos. Governor Kathy Hochul deserves praise for ordering the release of nearly 200 detainees. 

But what happens to New Yorkers after they leave Rikers and other correctional facilities?

That’s a key question few in public life are asking.

Here’s the reality: New Yorkers seeking to re-enter our workforce and economy after incarceration often end up in low-wage, dangerous jobs in the construction industry. 

Construction is one of few industries where New Yorkers with criminal records can find employment. New York’s reentry system relies on unregulated employment agencies to funnel workers from correctional facilities to nonunion construction sites. These firms are known as ‘body shops.’ They provide physical labor to contractors who want to build projects cheaply.

Reentry workers must “seek and maintain employment” as a condition of their release on parole. That means construction employers can regularly reduce safety standards, cut wages, and eliminate job-site protections – and get away with it. Formerly incarcerated New Yorkers risk re-imprisonment if they speak out against this exploitation and demand better treatment.

Our city’s reentry workforce overwhelmingly comes from low-income communities of color – Black and brown communities suffering from the highest death rates and job losses from COVID-19, and the highest crime rates.  

Research and common sense tell us that the quality of reentry employment, as measured in job satisfaction and wage levels, leads to reduced recidivism – less crime and violence on our streets. There is no reason to engage in criminal activity when you are on a stable career path with economic security. But if the only job you can get after leaving Rikers or another correctional facility is a low-wage survival job, you may return to crime to pay your bills or a number of other reasons.

That’s why all New Yorkers who want criminal justice reform and a safer city should also support higher employment standards for reentry jobs in construction.  

A bill now supported by the majority of the New York City Council will help reform our broken reentry system and protect our communities, while helping to improve job quality for formerly incarcerated New Yorkers.

It would require construction ‘body shops’ and similar reentry employment agencies to be licensed. This legislation would give reentry workers clear notice of their rights and job assignments, and disclose basic information about the agencies’ workforce and labor practices. Crucially, reentry labor brokers and job-placement firms would be required to tell workers what benefits are being offered, what their pay will be, and where they will work. This disclosure requirement is essential for protecting laborers who will build the future of New York, and for incentivizing the construction industry to create safer and better-paying jobs as part of covid recovery. 

The path to a safer city requires the creation of more economic opportunities for New Yorkers to be safe and thrive in their jobs. That’s what this bill will do, along with initiatives such as Pathways to Apprenticeship, which the City Council has actively supported, in District 21 in Queens and in other communities of color hit hardest by COVID-19.

This smart, pragmatic bill has garnered support from City Council members across the city. Passage of the bill this fall would be a major legacy item for City Council Speaker Corey Johnson.  Indeed, it would send a strong and clear message about how our city can advance real reentry in communities ravaged by mass incarceration, where economic opportunity has long been absent.

Plenty of responsible contractors and forward-thinking developers earn strong profits while partnering with trade unions to build and grow our city. They know that lowering construction safety standards, wages, and job quality is a race to the bottom that will drag us all down.

Expanding construction union membership will boost wages and increase economic security for New Yorkers returning home from prison, while reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety for all. 

***
Francisco Moya is a New York City Council Member representing District 21 in Queens. On Twitter @FranciscoMoyaNY. John Simmons is a former body shop worker and member of Laborers’ Local 79.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Who Decides How Public Money Is Spent?


1ramblers2

NY AG Letitia James with a big check (photo: @PatriciaFahy109)


It was with dismay that I read recent news reports about New York Attorney General Tish James embarking on a “HealNY” tour around the state to announce the distribution of $1.5 billion to fight the opioid epidemic.

The press announcements from the Attorney General's office appear to give her full and sole credit for the amounts and distribution of this fund. For example, an October 4 press release says: New York Attorney General Letitia James will begin her ‘HealNY’ statewide tour that will deliver up to $1.5 billion to New York communities most impacted by the opioid crisis....Today’s announcements are the first in Attorney General James’ statewide tour taking place throughout October, where she will highlight her efforts to combat the opioid crisis in New York and across the nation.”

A follow-up led with the announcement that "Elected Officials and Advocates Across New York City Praise AG James’ Continued Efforts to Deliver Funds for Opioid Abatement to Five Boroughs.”

This reminded me of a similar situation six years ago when Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced a plan to make grants totaling $800 million to a variety of criminal justice programs. In both instances, the funds to be allocated came from settlements of civil litigation -- the DA’s from banks and the AG’s from drug companies.

Oh no, I thought, here we go again!

When the DA’s criminal justice fund was announced, I said that notwithstanding his good intentions and reliance on a respected and capable entity to administer the program, it is the legislative budgeting process that should make spending decisions about money paid to city or state government, not a law enforcement officer:

“…the law giving Mr. Vance sole control over the funds should be reconsidered. Ideally…the money should have been treated as revenue to the city, and its expenditure determined through the budget process.”

“No one official should be making decisions about how substantial sums of revenue are distributed…”

I had also made this point when a dispute broke out between then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo about who had the authority it distribute more than $600 million from a settlement with JP Morgan:

“Funds paid in settlement of litigation with the state, unless intended to compensate for specific losses, should be used as determined through the normal budget and appropriation process. The attorney general should not be able to unilaterally allocate public funds without the executive and legislative review that the budget process is intended to provide.”

So the campaign-style roadshow by Attorney General James indicated that once again litigation-generated revenue was being inappropriately distributed by a prosecutor outside the budget process. But fortunately, that turns out not to be the case.

The Attorney General collaborated with members of the State Senate and Assembly to pass legislation this year creating an Opioid Settlement Fund to serve as a lockbox for all receipts from settlements related to the opioid epidemic, reserving all of the funding for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery. The Fund will be overseen by a 19-person board including commissioners of relevant state agencies and two appointees of the AG as well as appointees of the Governor, both houses of the Legislature, and nominees of counties and other localities. The law specifies the purposes for which the funds from the relevant litigations may be used and a formula for distributing the funds throughout the state.

How reassuring to see that the AG understood that the monies she would obtain from the opioid litigation should be controlled by appropriation of the Legislature, with her office’s input but not ultimate authority. The full Settlement Fund Board has not been appointed yet and therefore the specific distribution of funds has not been determined and likely will not be completed by the November 1 date in the statute.

While it would be far better if all litigation proceeds were deposited in the general fund to be used as needed to fund the government, this structure is an improvement over prior law and practice, and that is more important than the impression left by the AG’s tour that one elected official is disbursing a big chunk of money on her own.

***

***
Carol Kellermann was president of Citizens Budget Commission from 2008 through 2018.

 ***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Vote Yes on Ballot Questions to Improve Redistricting and Voting Rights


visits polling ozone

Voters at the polls (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


In New York, we are just weeks away from going to the polls to vote in the general election. You may know that we will vote for various important positions in our local government, such as the mayor of New York City and county executives outside of the Big Apple. You may not know that, across the state, we will also be voting on critical ballot questions. To strengthen democracy in our state, it’s important that you vote “yes” on three key questions to reform the redistricting process and expand our voting rights.

Over the years, our communities have tirelessly worked to increase voter turnout and ensure the voices of immigrant, Black, brown, and working-class New Yorkers be heard at the polls. In the upcoming elections, we can take further steps to help all eligible voters cast their ballots by approving ballot questions to adopt same-day voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and redistricting reform. At least 50 community-based organizations across the state have supported these measures. And we have launched "Yes on 1, 3, and 4" to educate voters. Here’s why.

The first proposal on the ballot (Question 1) will help improve the redistricting process in our state. In 2020, community-based organizations like ours led massive organizing efforts to have all our communities counted in the Census. Legislators have twice passed a series of important reforms to improve the redistricting process. The proposal before the voters would ensure that all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status, be included in the Census, regardless of any potential future shenanigans from Washington.

It would also guarantee that incarcerated persons remain counted at the place of their last residence for redistricting and cap the number of state senators at 63 (Senate Republicans increased the number last time around to hold on to a majority). Finally, it will make the redistricting process work by moving up the timeline for redistricting, repealing inoperative language, and eliminating differential vote thresholds for adopting redistricting plans based on which party controls the State Legislature. This will improve the redistricting process and allow for equal and fairer representation across the state. 

November’s ballot will also include key voting rights questions on same-day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting. Many times, eligible voters miss the deadline for registration or are not aware of any issues with their registration until they arrive at the polls. Same-day voter registration (Question 3) will eliminate voter registration deadlines and allow these voters to make sure they’re registered and cast their ballot on Election Day. 

Voters should also support ‘no-excuse’ absentee voting (Question 4). In the midst of the global pandemic, we witnessed throughout the country and in our state how absentee voting was crucial in allowing voters to cast their ballots. The wide availability of this form of voting should continue after the pandemic. No-excuse absentee voting will allow voters to vote in the future using an absentee ballot without requiring a justification. This is a critical step forward that will help expand access to meet the needs of voters who need an absentee ballot due to health concerns, personal emergencies or who simply cannot make it to the voting polls.

With the elections approaching, New Yorkers will vote for new leadership for their communities. We should also vote to expand voting rights and strengthen our democracy. Vote “yes” on Questions 1, 3, and 4 and help our state move forward toward fairer districts and expanded voting rights for all. 

***
Theo Oshiro is the Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York. Melody Lopez is the Executive Director of the New York Civic Engagement Table. On Twitter @TheoOshiro of @MaketheRoadNY, and @NYCivicEngage.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Governor Hochul’s Opportunity to Transform New York for Future Generations


epa regan highlight

Gov. Hochul (photo: governor's office)


We all knew Governor Kathy Hochul would be unique. Simply by virtue of being our state’s first woman executive, she will stand out in history. She entered the office in unfortunate circumstances, not the typical path to New York’s Executive Chamber. But since taking the oath just over a month ago, we’ve seen a governor in action. 

New York’s 57th governor began her term with a ceremonial swearing in where she wore white, the color of the suffragettes, and noted that “brevity is the hallmark of [her] administration.” Later that day, she delivered an address to the people of New York that included the promise of a fresh start and a commitment to address big issues facing communities, saying “…this is our time.”

In early September, she met with the press regarding the emergency response to historic flooding from Hurricane Ida in a windbreaker with what appeared to be a did-it-herself alteration crossing out in black marker the “Lt.” before “Governor” on her embroidered title. “No-nonsense,” it seems, may be a hallmark of her leadership style, in addition to brevity. 

During Climate Week, the governor shared stories of her childhood, detailing why she cares about the environment and why it is a top priority for her. Growing up in Lackawanna, “pollution was just a fact of life” for everyone who lived there, she said. She described the dirty, orange air and the harm if caused. Her announcements included an air monitoring program for communities most affected by air pollution and the release of $600 million in grants to protect clean drinking water and modernize infrastructure.

At several events that week she expressed her intention to accelerate state investments in clean water quickly and efficiently to address local needs. She also proposed to add $1 billion to the 2022 Environmental Bond Act, to total $4 billion, and proposed to rename the measure to accurately describe its purpose, “Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs.”

It is, as the governor noted on her first day, our time. Our time to tackle global warming, from reducing the pollution that causes poor air quality and frequent, extreme weather to protecting people and buildings from deadly floods and heat. Our time to ensure state agencies have the resources they need to implement laws and regulations that protect us from pollution and safeguard our environment. Our time to invest in infrastructure that will ensure we have safe roads and clean water to drink and to swim and fish in. Our time to conserve our forests, farms, and wetlands before they are lost forever.

We’re facing big, complex problems, and we need all levels of government to deliver solutions. Governor Hochul can provide strong leadership in New York and demonstrate to the nation what is possible by empowering her agencies to achieve our ambitious climate goals and collaborating with the Legislature to provide the necessary resources and enact policies to save lives. Top priorities must include rapid action to build the renewable energy economy, protect clean water and air, and conserve family farms and forests. The governor already has a strong start. 

In addition to passing the Bond Act in November 2022, we must increase investments in our environment and infrastructure right now – including a $500 million Environmental Protection Fund and $1 billion for the Clean Water Infrastructure Improvement Act. These funds generate huge returns on investment for New York communities, such as good jobs, while preventing pollution in our drinking water and conserving local farms, forests, and parks.

Increasing funding for our State Parks and state lands owned by the Department of Environmental Conservation will provide the recreational opportunities New Yorkers sought out with heightened urgency during the pandemic. It will also ensure the state-managed lands and waters are in good condition and safely accessible to residents and tourists alike – an economic boon to many communities. 

Finally, and in a move that would additionally set Governor Hochul apart from her predecessor, we need to increase investments in the public workforce at state agencies. Big announcements for capital projects and nation-leading goals often make excellent press releases. But after the dust settles, someone needs to hold programs accountable for meeting their goals and ensure funding gets to communities quickly and essential services are provided to New Yorkers. 

By investing in our state agencies, partnering with the Legislature, leveraging federal funding, and providing effective, transparent leadership, Governor Hochul can cement her place in history as a truly unique and inspirational leader. 

***
Jessica Ottney Mahar is Policy and Strategy Director at The Nature Conservancy. On Twitter @jessicaottney & @nature_ny.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Health and Safety for Everyone: Former City Jail Physicians on the Crisis at Rikers and Beyond


holds bor press

Mayor de Blasio & company make an announcement (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)


What is going on at Rikers Island? As former physicians on Rikers Island and in other city jails, we have been horrified to hear of the unsafe, unhygienic, violent, and deadly conditions there. Over 12 people have died this year alone. To prevent more suffering and death, courts need to release thousands of people immediately and to stop sending more people in.

Despite limitations associated with the jail setting, we worked hard to provide excellent medical care for people who were incarcerated. The clinics provided evidence-based substance use disorder treatment, gender affirming hormone therapy, dental care, and mental health care — services oftentimes difficult to access in the community. The electronic medical record was queried by administrators to ensure that patients had appropriately scheduled follow-up appointments and that patterns of injuries were systematically addressed. Providers followed evidence-based algorithms in caring for patients with chronic diseases, referred patients for specialty care, and attended best-practice lectures common to academic medical institutions. On paper, the medical care provided in the jails was exceptional compared to other carceral systems.

Now, we hear from former colleagues and impacted communities that the provision of even basic healthcare is nearly impossible in the jails. We’re told that providers are waiting in the medical clinics for patients who are never brought. We’re told that patients in need of emergency care are waiting for hours for Department of Correction (DOC) escorts to transport them to the hospital.

We read in this letter from Dr. Ross MacDonald, the Chief Medical Officer of Correctional Health Services (and our former boss), that people are waiting for days in intake prior to seeing a medical provider, and that intake areas are overcrowded and violent. We’ve learned that people with positive COVID-19 tests routinely wait more than 24 hours in crowded “pens” prior to being put in isolation.

Elected officials have toured the facilities, testifying about filthy conditions, people sleeping in showers, and even a witnessed suicide attempt. Recently released inmates have shared their stories: days and weeks in intake, sleeping on bed-bug-ridden mats, and without showers, clean water, masks, and adequate food. 

To date, proposed solutions to these problems have largely focused on increasing staffing and reopening strategically shuttered facilities. But the idea that improved staffing will magically improve conditions on the Island is not grounded in reality. The truth is that, even in times of adequate staffing, the care we provided in the medical clinics was marred by the violent and inhumane setting in which our clinics were embedded.

Our exam rooms were not private. The clinic was disturbingly loud with guards and inmates yelling profanities and threats at each other or with people in “pens” begging to be seen right away or struggling psychiatrically. Patients reported trying to get appointments for weeks but being denied care by guards who wouldn’t sign them up for or escort them to the clinic. Providers were limited in what we could prescribe because even pretty harmless things like chapstick were considered “contraband.” Improving staffing will not fix any of these problems.

The only just solution to the problems at Rikers is reducing the ever-growing incarcerated population. To do this, we need to listen to impacted communities and their advocates. As healthcare workers committed to addressing upstream social determinants of health, we heed these suggestions in full, including:

-Stopping the prosecution of minor offenses like drug possession and sex work, like they have done in Baltimore and have started to do in Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s office. This policy should be applied retroactively so that people with pending cases, warrants, or on probation for these offenses are impacted. 

-Release people who are held in jail for failure to appear in court, especially if they are not there on a serious offense.

-Prosecutors and defense should file for early release for people in prison who have less than one year left in their sentence.

-Prosecutors and defense and probation services should work to eliminate probation for minor offenses and decline to incarcerate on technical violations.

-Allow review of bail petitions with an eye toward more flexibility on release given the humanitarian crisis.

Surely, some might worry that these changes could make the city less safe, and the city needs to meet with communities to address their concerns. In the meantime, we are convinced by evidence that shows that large-scale decarceration efforts have been successful in the past, and that decarceration can improve both public health and public safety

In 1992, Vernon C. Bain Center, the barge now docked at Hunts Point, the Bronx, was opened as a temporary solution to jail overcrowding. Once it was staffed, it became a permanent facility and now “houses” nearly 600 people. Last month, Stephan Khadu, only 24 years old, died on that barge, marking the twelfth and most recent death associated with the city jails this year. The Rikers Island crisis highlights that there is really no such thing as a “safe jail for staff and patients,” and if concerns today are met with increased staffing and facility re-opening instead of large-scale decarceration efforts, we will move further from health justice. What people need and deserve is comprehensive healthcare in their own communities where they live, not in city jails. 

***
Zoey Thill, MD, MPH, MPP, is a member of the Public Health Advisory Group for RAPP (Release Aging People in Prisons). Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, is an Instructor at the Yale School of Medicine, Program in Addiction Medicine and Medical Director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Giving Children Something to Live For


4 letter to editor children

Kids at school (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


Positioning efforts to alleviate childhood poverty in any way against efforts to build future assets for children is a mistake. I am a professor at the University of Michigan. As a child I grew up poor, evicted often, living in hotels, homeless at other times, while eating seemed optional, not mandatory, for survival in our house. I ended up dropping out of high school as many kids like me do.

Being poor in America is hard, I would not downplay that for a second. But the hardest thing I found about being poor is feeling like you have no tangible hope. This is not to say poor people don’t have hope, they do. For example, my mother and I would walk through affluent neighborhoods and talk of living there one day, but we could see no tangible way to make that dream a reality. While this type of hope helps you make it through the day, it doesn’t change how you behave. It is hope divorced from a future. 

What has made the United States of America a destination, and the thing that makes it great, is not that you will not experience hardship, but in the midst of hardship you can see a way to a better future. In fact, when many people set out for the U.S., they understand that they will have to suffer untold risks and hardships. However, these risks and hardships pale in comparison to the concrete possibility of a better future. And while it might be vogue to downplay the importance of The American Dream nowadays, it is our belief in this dream that has carried us through our toughest times as a people.

This is not a dream about making it through the day, it is a promise that we can have a better tomorrow, that the land is rich and the institutions robust (even though access has not been equal), so if you work hard and have the ability you can change your position in life. 

This is not an argument to abandon policies that give people “enough to live by,” indeed those are also needed. Instead, I am arguing that the drive Americans have demonstrated throughout history comes from more than having enough money to pay the bills each week, it comes from the promise of a better future. Not just yours, but that your children can have a better future. This promise feels tangible to us, because we see the richness of our land and the strength of our institutions. 

When talking about the New Deal, Roosevelt put it this way: “Liberty requires opportunity to make a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living that gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.” Without this opportunity, he continued, “life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.”

We must recognize the importance of building future assets for children, helping spark their power to pursue or maybe even dream of happiness.     

Children’s Savings Account (CSAs) programs like what New York City and Mayor de Blasio have called ‘baby bonds’ are asset-building efforts, even if it can be argued that they do not go far enough. Assets allow and prompt children to plan for their futures. When children have assets of their own, they can begin to visualize their future selves going to college, buying a home, starting a business, or retiring one day. Hope becomes tangible, and not just wishful. Nurturing our children’s future selves is as important to motivating them to invest in the American way of life as meeting their daily needs. Dreams buoyed by well-funded CSAs allow a child to withstand hardship whether it be poverty, war, or even a pandemic. 

Giving children a CSA (i.e., assets) is not delaying gratification but providing them with the capacity to think and plan for their futures, as American as apple pie or the iPhone.  

****
William Elliott III is a Professor, Director of Joint Program in Social Work and Social Science, and Director of the Center on Assets, Education, and Inclusion (AEDI) at the University of Michigan.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Make No Mistake, the Ongoing Congestion Pricing Delay is Environmental Racism


3 congestion pricing delay

Subway tunnels (photo: Governor's Office)


How many of our city's children need to suffer while the MTA conducts a 16-month ‘environmental review’ to implement congestion pricing in New York City? 

Throughout 2020 and into this year, our city and state elected officials proclaimed in the face of COVID-19 and racial justice protests that they were ready to tackle the problematic issues generations of New Yorkers experienced—among them, solving the structural inequities caused by environmental racism and the harm that it does to our kids. 

Back in 2019, the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that the highways New York historically placed near communities of color "exacerbate lung and heart ailments, cause asthma attacks, and lead to both increased hospitalizations and mortality from cardiovascular diseases." Having housing near highways and disinvestments in public transportation worsened exposure to pollutants in these communities.

A deeply regrettable outcome of these decisions made our communities of color more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, like COVID-19, where well over 4,000 of our city's children lost a parent due to the pandemic (according to a study of the first wave, in 2020). And to the surprise of no one, that initial data showed one in 600 Black children and one in 700 Hispanic children lost parents due to COVID, double the rate compared to one in 1,500 white families. Another statistical example of the human consequences of our society's enduring prejudices.

The long-term effects of losing a parent will be hard to overcome. Children who experience parental loss at a young age battle early and persistent negative impacts on every aspect of their lives that stunt their social and emotional development. Among them, dealing with early-onset depression that continues throughout the person's lifetime.

And that's not all. Pollution continues harming their ability to learn and thrive, while making kids more susceptible to the next pandemic, or even more ‘regular’ illnesses, like the seasonal flu.

The Inter-American Development Bank conducted a study of 3,880 schools near pollutant-heavy areas and found that air pollution increased morbidity and mortality among children. Another study of schoolchildren by the Brookings Institute further validated those findings showing persistent exposure to air pollution increased fatigue, absenteeism, attention problems, poor test scores, and higher suspension rates.

It doesn't have to be this way. 

Congestion pricing — set to be implemented in Manhattan south of 61st Street but impacting the entire city — will reduce car traffic, improve air quality, and help limit traffic crashes while increasing investments and access to our mass transportation system for the betterment of all New Yorkers.

There is no time to wait, and a 16-month review process is simply unacceptable. New York leaders must take action now to reduce that timeframe and get congestion pricing implemented as soon as possible.

The issues highlighted so starkly during 2020 have not gone away, and no action has been taken that resolves them, or even addresses them in a truly systemic fashion to improve health outcomes for our kids. But, we can embrace solutions that are ready for implementation, and congestion pricing is one of them. 

The impetus is now on our elected leaders to expedite this plan for this generation of New York City kids. And the next.

***
Denny Salas is a former candidate for City Council who advocates for increasing affordable housing, pedestrianizing New York City streets, and eliminating structural inequities. On Twitter: @realdennysalas.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

‘Vigilante’ Mayoral Candidate Narrative Obscures History of New York City Resident Patrols


curtis sliwa cs

Curtis Sliwa & the Guardian Angels (photo: @CurtisSliwa)


Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee for New York City mayor, has portrayed himself as a police advocate and crimefighter dating back to his founding of the Guardian Angels in the late 1970s. But the image Sliwa has crafted of himself as the original civilian crimefighter distorts his role with the renegade patrol group.

While the Angels – a group of largely young African-American and Latino New Yorkers that began patrolling subways – may have been the most well-known volunteer crime-fighting group in the city – they were far from the first. They emerged only after wide swaths of New Yorkers pioneered a movement in which residents took to patrolling city streets. And it was Sliwa’s own deceitful tactics and bombastic deriding of law enforcement and officials while leading the Angels that helped facilitate the demise of this grassroots anti-crime movement that had been flourishing until that point.

In the mid-1960s, for example, Jewish residents of Crown Heights formed the Maccabees, the first citizen patrol of this time. Each night, hundreds of volunteers escorted residents and served as “crime-spotters” for the police in cars equipped with two-way radios.

Similar volunteer patrols grew in the years ahead. By the end of 1972, there were an estimated 15,000 volunteers in tenant and neighborhood patrols and at least 75 citizen car patrols.

New Yorkers formed these patrols out of deep concerns about rising crime. Homicides, for example, nearly tripled to 1,117 between 1960 and 1970. Many residents believed that the police – whether because they were outnumbered, inefficient, or just corrupt – were “not sufficient to check crime in our community,” as one group of Brooklyn residents put it.

For many whites, the city’s growing populations of color heightened fears about crime. But patrols also spread throughout African-American neighborhoods. In the early 1970s in Bedford-Stuyvesant, for example, 73 community groups came together to patrol residential areas, while Black shopkeepers formed their own patrol to stop holdups.

Citizen watches also spread throughout public housing projects, where by the end of the 1970s, nearly 13,000 residents patrolled across 127 developments. Residents of color commonly demanded not just more but better policing as well as greater educational and job opportunities that would address crime at its roots.

Though initially skeptical of these community patrols, officials ultimately switched course due to the city’s deteriorating economy. Officials supported these patrols as a low-cost means to combat crime as city budgets were constrained. In 1973, for example, Mayor John Lindsay initiated a program that provided matching funds for citizen patrols to purchase equipment like walkie-talkies and uniforms.

As the city’s financial conditions worsened over the 1970s, the police stepped up their support as well, especially through training programs. By late 1977, more than 32,000 residents had gone through the NYPD’s block watcher training while a Civilian Observation Patrol (COP) trained citizen patrols. By 1977, COP groups were active in nearly 65% of precincts.

Most critical to the growth of citizen patrols, however, was the thousands of residents who believed their volunteerism was necessary – from the residents who patrolled six nights a week in Hollis Hills to the dozens of community groups in the African-American areas of Crown Heights and Flatbush who patrolled on foot and by car in uniform with radios connected to the local precinct.

It was this environment – of a city gripped by widespread concerns about crime and by the belief that police alone could not stop it – that forged the opening for Sliwa and the Guardian Angels to move onto the subways and capture the attention of the city and the country. Indeed, by the time the Angels gained public prominence, volunteer anti-crime groups had become established across the city’s landscape. Citizen patrols numbered 60 in 1977 and 135 in 1982; the overall number of residents involved in anti-crime programs by that time doubled to 150,000.

Once the Angels emerged, Sliwa’s consistent criticism of the failures of officials and police to effectively address crime certainly had merit, but they were undermined by his arrogance and bravado as well as his self-promotion tactics, which were designed to keep himself in the media spotlight (a number of these schemes were faked, as Sliwa later admitted).

What’s more, Sliwa’s antics helped cause officials to become more cautious of supporting grassroots anti-crime initiatives. City officials dismissed the Angels as vigilantes, but also began pulling back on resources for resident patrols more generally, instead focusing more narrowly on boosting police funding. Over the 1980s, the number of residents involved in patrols ultimately declined by one third and the number of active block watchers dropped by over 80%.

Indeed, by many measures, Sliwa did more to help usher in the decline of the broader citizen patrol movement, rather than being the catalyst that he portrays himself to be.

Today, the city once again finds itself awash in concerns about public safety, despite crime rates remaining far lower than decades earlier and despite perceptive criticisms of police. And Sliwa’s position once again threatens community safety.

Sliwa’s campaign has expunged his criticisms of policing he once made from his biography while portraying him as having been the singular New Yorker who “had to do something” when all others had “resigned themselves to the reality” of crime to buttress his law and order credentials and call for increased police. This false narrative not only omits the richer and more complex history of citizen patrols in New York. It also deliberately diminishes proposed responses to crime that have emerged from within New York’s neighborhoods today that go beyond Sliwa’s position that the predominant path to safety lays with more police.

***
Benjamin Holtzman is an Assistant Professor of History at Lehman College and author of The Long Crisis: New York City and the Path to Neoliberalism. On Twitter @holtzman_b.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Private Sector Must Stand Up for Voting Rights; Here’s How


polling sites private must sector

Voting (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


We are in the midst of a Republican-led national campaign to restrict voting. According to the Brennan Center, 18 states have already enacted 30 laws this year that will make voting more difficult. The federal government has the ability to pass national laws to mitigate the effects of many state-level restrictions, such as the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.” But due to the lack of a clear majority for both bills, we cannot wait for the federal government to act. We must mobilize the private sector to counteract the effects of restrictive voting policies.

Across the country, laws have been enacted that restrict voting access by shortening the hours of operation of poll sites, reducing the number of drop boxes available for completed absentee ballots, preventing the distribution of water and food to voters waiting in long lines, purging voter rolls, preventing proactive outreach regarding absentee voting, and more.

The private sector can and should work to mitigate the effects of these policies. Companies should commit to policies advanced by Time to Vote, for example, which mobilizes CEOs and private company leadership teams to pledge that employees will be given the time they need to cast their ballots. More specifically, companies big and small must offer paid time off to vote. This can be done in many ways: allowing for late arrival to work or early departure from work in order to cast one’s vote without penalty and with pay; educating employees internally about local elections, deadlines to register to vote, time frames to conduct one’s vote, etc; facilitating the ability to register to vote on site in the workplace; and more.

The beauty of such policies are many. First, working to counteract barriers to vote is nonpartisan, and thus does not politicize the workplace. Second, there is an interest convergence at play. If the need for voting rights and election integrity are essential to the operation and preservation of our democracy, the private sector has every interest in preserving these rights. Our democracy has created the greatest economy the world has ever known. Private companies operate within and benefit from the stability and integrity of our democracy.

And let’s be clear that this is also about racial justice. Restrictive voting measures disproportionally disenfranchise racial minorities, and in fact, are insidiously designed to do just that. Those corporations that do not take a clear stand against racial injustice and enact policies to further justice and equity are on a sinking ship as the demographics of the country change and as younger generations demand some level of socio-economic activism from private companies.

The distortion of our democracy as reflected in less participation by racial minorities threatens the sustainability of our democracy, and the environment in which private companies can achieve prosperity.

So what can be done on an individual level? Talk to your employer about programs like Time to Vote. The fact that nearly 2,000 companies across the country have signed on to the pledge gives it legitimacy, and will allow your company to be in the good graces of many other reputable firms. Demand that your company and other large, national firms do not donate to candidates at the local, state, or federal level that do not protect voting rights. Speak out on social media about the importance of the private sector when the government fails to protect our rights.

And remember: none of our rights to participate in our democracy are safe until all of our rights to participate in our democracy are safe.

***
Natalie Diaz is Chief of Staff at Time Equities, Inc.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Voter Privacy Violations Will Continue Until Government Acts to Fix Them


NYC voters voting boothVoters at the polls (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)


Voter data reporting laws must provide for voter privacy. Our elections are some of the most secure in all of the world, and at a time when voter confidence faces threats from false claims of fraud, it’s all the more important that voter data be held in a secure way. As cities and states seek to enhance confidence in their organizational competency and the validity of elections, statutes demanding access to auditable public election records are increasingly commonplace.

Election data is a public good because it allows any interested person to double check ballot tabulations and conduct useful research on voter behavior. But without sufficient data security provisions, releasing voter data risks our protections guaranteeing the right to cast a secret ballot.

New York City just experienced such a lapse. Three researchers used two publicly available data sets and two lines of code to identify how 378 voters voted in the 2021 primary elections. As The New York Times recently reported​​, the disclosure included high-profile voters that expressed their dismay at the invasion of their privacy.

We are those researchers. Our ability to identify these voters and their choices does not rely on any hyper-technical skills, it was based on simply knowing where to look and how to expose data privacy lapses in a straightforward way. Other people, with a variety of reasons in mind, can and will be able to do the same thing in elections moving forward unless governments act to shore up their data practices. Fortunately, the technical solutions are easy to implement. The political solutions, however, must be addressed first. 

On August 18, 2021, the New York City Board of Elections released vote records for the June primary election. The records released from the first ranked-choice voting election in New York City are called the cast vote record (CVR). Each CVR lists the ranked choices each voter cast in the Democratic or Republican primary election as well as the Assembly District (AD) and Election District (ED) for each ballot. To keep voter choices private, a de-identifying step is taken in which CVRs are associated with numerical identifiers rather than voter names before they are released publicly.

But, in some AD/ED voter locations only one person showed up to vote in the election. In those cases, we were able to use the New York State voter file (obtained through a standard Freedom of Information Law request) to check which registered voters participated in the election at all. The voter file contains the data on which voter participates in which election, but nothing about individual choices. However, when there is only one voter who turned out for a particular party in a particular AD/ED, it becomes clear who voted and for which candidates in each election. 

Given this alarming lapse in voter privacy we contacted the New York City Board of Elections hoping to point out the error and suggest a simple-to-implement technical solution. 

We spoke with the BOE and brought this issue to their attention through a phone call with a bipartisan delegation from the board as well as the BOE General Counsel, Hemalee Patel, on September 13, 2021. The BOE was aware that this problem may arise but the representatives noted that we were the first research team to find it and bring it to their attention. They indicated that this voter privacy problem is a result of the reporting requirements that mandate the board makes the data publicly available in a certain format, with no flexibility to group single-voter AD/EDs. According to the BOE, this problem can only be corrected by a change to the New York City Charter or New York State Law.

The solution to this privacy issue is not to restrict the data sources employed in our analysis. These data sources -- both the CVR and the New York State voter file -- are integral to evaluating the performance of elections. The CVR is necessary in order for people to audit the Board of Elections and its tabulations, while the voter file is necessary for voting rights groups to ensure that districts are drawn fairly and equitably to ensure proper representation, among other reasons.

If the voter file is restricted, it will effectively only be available to political parties, super PACs, interest groups, and political campaigns due to their special access and ability to pay. Instead, if data reporting requirements are changed to require very low single-voter AD/EDs to be bundled with neighboring AD/EDs, this identifying operation becomes nearly impossible in cases where pooled voters cast votes for different candidates. Similar measures are taken by the Census Bureau every ten years in order to protect privacy in rural areas and in small city blocks, where random “noise” is injected into the data or entries are swapped between geographies or bundled so that small, singularly identifiable entries are not released. 

Similarly, the solution is not to end the practice of ranked-choice voting. While this came about through the results of the election, there is nothing preventing us from conducting this same operation in an entirely different system, whether it be a traditional plurality system or an alternative system such as approval voting, single transferable vote, or a party-list voting. The issue is the data reporting requirements, not the data itself.

It is our hope that by raising this issue we may better protect the privacy of voters in New York City, and voters around the United States. When issues of voter data and privacy are involved we need more than elected officials and appointed bureaucrats at the table — academic researchers, lawyers, voting scholars, and election administrators must be involved as we formulate and implement government policy on voter privacy. 

This operational fix would be incredibly simple from a technical standpoint and would not cost the New York City Board of Elections any more than a few minutes of staff time. But importantly, it would protect the privacy of these voters, who cast their ballots under the good-faith assumption that their privacy is protected by law. The City Council or the State Legislature needs to act so that boards of elections can implement better data stewardship practices in the future.

***
Lindsey Cormack is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Jesse T. Clark is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Electoral Innovation Lab, Princeton University. On Twitter @DCinbox and @electionclark.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

An Assignment for the Federal Government: Tackle Student Debt and Expand Educational Opportunity by Doubling Pell Grants


fordham alumni fclc

Students graduating (photo: Bruce Gilbert/Forham Alumni)


For nearly 50 years, the Pell Grant has been the centerpiece of federal student aid, helping individuals most in need of financial support to attend the college or university of their choice. Pell Grants help more than 370,000 New York students and their families afford a college education every year. They are proven to be the most effective and equitable investment the federal government can make in students. Simply put, investing in Pell Grants tackles student debt head-on. 

However, the federal government has not made a meaningful increase to Pell Grants in well over a decade. In the interim, colleges and universities have worked hard to pick up the slack, but the challenges of inadequate funding persist.

New York’s private, not-for-profit colleges and universities are doing their part to make higher education more accessible and affordable by providing more than $6.4 billion in financial aid each year to students of all income levels. In fact, 66% of students who attend New York’s private, not-for-profit colleges and universities come from families earning less than $125,000 a year. Despite best efforts from institutions, the affordability gap has become a greater barrier as Pell Grants have remained stagnant. The federal government must step up and do its part. 

The time for Congress to act is now but lawmakers should not pick winners and losers by only investing in students at some colleges. Doubling the maximum Pell Grant to $13,000 is the fairest and most efficient and equitable way for Congress to provide higher education funding to all students who need it. Doubling Pell Grants would enable thousands more students, at both community colleges and four-year colleges, to receive the college education of their dreams while reducing student loan debt.  

This investment would have sweeping benefits for students throughout New York and across the nation. Congress has the opportunity to make a critical investment in our students and the social and economic wellbeing of the country itself.

Pell Grants were overwhelmingly successful when first introduced in 1972 because they covered a significant percentage of college tuition costs for students. However, the cost of high-quality higher education has risen and Pell Grants have not kept pace. Doubling Pell Grants is the most effective way to restore that balance and offer more students a sizable financial aid grant that provides meaningful help with college costs. 

The Biden Administration has laid forth a tremendous opportunity for students in New York and across the country to receive an affordable college education of their choice. Doubling the Pell Grant should be Congress’s top higher education priority. It should be accomplished immediately, and certainly by the program’s 50th anniversary on June 23, 2022.

***
by: Lola W. Brabham, President, Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities
Henry C. “Hank” Foley, President, New York Institute of Technology
Miguel Martinez-Saenz, President, St. Francis College
Father Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President, Fordham University
Laura Sparks, President, The Cooper Union

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years